What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011) was an Anglo-American author and journalist. His books made him a prominent public intellectual and a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits. He was a columnist and literary critic at Vanity Fair, Slate, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry and a variety of other media outlets. He was named one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.

The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda.
By Christopher Hitchens

"In my most recent book, I reprint some words from a British Embassy cable, sent from Baghdad to the Foreign Office in 1976. The subject is Iraq's new leader. His quiet coup d'etat is reassuringly described as "the first smooth transfer of power since 1958."Read More (Slate)

I'm not sure he's anti-free speech here. Rather, he's encouraging Assange to have the courage of his own convictions. It's well-documented that Assange has developed an extensive network for dissemination of material. So his personal direction seems less than necessary for its operation going forward. Rather, he should take his battle to the next level-- public confrontation. If Assange is truly a serious person, rather than a narcissitic sociopath interested ultimately only in his personal self-preservation, he should turn himself in and wage a truly courageous battle.

Mr. Assange is already taking it to the next level but certainly not by putting on the martyr crown voluntarily. So he should turn himself in and wage a truly courageous battle, like turn himself in to the criminals who publicly call for his assasination, who behind the scenes work to make up bogus rape charges, pressure Interpol, Amazon, Paypal and every country to hunt him down??Sure, his trial would be in the best tradition of McCarthyism and the stalinist show trials in Moscow from 1936-38. Hitchens has some nerve to call out Assange for something Hitchens obviously was too cowardly himself!I used to love Hitchens but he has become a sad reactionary old man who is now a drumbeater for the neo-con warmongers, the US oligarchy, supporting their criminal oil wars for US hegemony worldwide. Defending war criminals like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney who send the sons of good American people to die as cannon fodder in some desert while their own sons are busy studying law in Harvard and getting laid!Mr. Assange exposed US war crimes (and many crimes of other states) but Hitchens prefers obviously the public only learns of these crimes in 30 years (if ever!) when the outrage will be not much and when the fallen US soldiers are long (hopefully - who knows which war comes next) buried.What Mr. Assange/WikiLeaks did is not illegal under US law (and Assange is neither an US citizen nor is Wikileaks in US jurisdiction) and the fucking Obama administration knows it so why not attack or prosecute the Times, the Guardian or Spiegel magazine? Hitchens first cites the Espionage Act then goes on to admit that yes it doesn't apply to WikiLeaks anyway. It's Bradley Manning who is accused of leaking the documents so they have to try to prosecute him. And until he is found guilty he must be presumed innocent.I could dissect Hitchens lousy rambling article further but others have already done this in the Slate comments and exposed Hitchens hypocrisy!Shame on you Hitchens!

Assange should turn himself into Swedish authorities. He has been accused of sexual misconduct there, and should answer the charges. Many think the charges are trumped up and designed to discredit him for his leaking activities. If that is the case, his defense ought to be able to show it. Distrust of the American justice system is perhaps forgivable. But the US has not charged him with anything. Sweden, which is generally regarded as a good global citizen, has charged him. He should answer the charges.

Not sure what "indeed" is supposed to mean, but it strikes me that if Assange's life is truly threatened by the US, a high profile surrender to Swedish authorities is his best protection. That way, he can defend himself, expose the charges as fradulent (if in fact they are), and request asylum, either from Sweden or another sympathetic country. The longer he's in hiding, the easier he'll be to "disappear". As I said, his paranoia is not serving him well at this point.

As Assange's attorney has made clear, if the authorities in Great Britain want to arrest him, they can. They know where he is. So, in any case, it's not up to Assange to turn himself him. They have the allegations from Sweden and the notice from Interpol. The ball's in the court of the authorities.

The reason for the delay likely has to do with the nature of the charges (incredibly suspect not to mention flimsy).

It's one thing to think that WikiLeaks might need to fall under some form of accountability and another to say he should ask to be arrested.

On what charge?

Hold on, we're just in the process of making one up!

Even Hitchens himself says the Swedish charges are trumped up so obviously Hitchens can't be calling on Assanga to turn himseld in to a Swede. Assanga's WikiLeaks don't fall under the Officail Secrets Act that Hitchens says he would have imperilled himseld with in an alternate reality. Assanga is not a US citizen so he can't be charged under the Espionage Act, I tink. (Although that's a strange one for Hitchens because he was always mocked the Schenck vs. United States ruling of "falsely crying fire in a crwoded theater") and besides, Assanga is only the conduit through which the Leaks, passed on by a soldier (who should definitely be courtmartialled) are published IN CONJUNCTION, I hasten to add, with the New York Times, Das Speigal, The Guardian and Las Pais and Le Monde who are presumably guilty of the same offenses and yet, I hasten to add, their rigth to publish (NYT's) the Pentagon Papers was upheld by the Supreme Court in New York Times vs. United States. etc...etc...

So just what he's blabbering on about here I don't know.

Remember when Hitchens talked about going to Czechoslovakia and he said, "Mustn't mention Kafka!"

Then when there the cops said, "You're under arrest!"

He said, "What for?"

They said, "We're not telling you!"

Then he said, "Damn, now I'm going to have to mention Kafka."

I think that Hitchens is being a bit Kafkaesqeu here. He wants Assanga locked up because he doesn't like Assanga but can't think of a charge.

I have to say (and sorry to sound like some sort of Hitch sycophant), this is the first time I've truly disagreed with him.

I think Wikileaks have made a few bad moves recently, but I'm not sure if Hitch is looking at the broader picture here; if he is, he's certainly ignoring it for whatever reason. Try applying some of what he's written to the Salman Rushdie fatwa. It's not an entirely accurate analogy, but at the very least, there are high profile people baying for blood when so far, Assange's actions have not amounted to any actual harm.

Wikileaks is not targetting or exposing a specific or defined coverup. What would have fallen victim if not without wikileaks? who are benifitting from the leaks at the moment?Answers to these questions are very weak and vague.Asking what laws are broken is truly besides the question. The question is, put into view of a global world that's in a constant ideological conflict, are Western values and interests truly better off when it's naked, open, transparent?I often find defenders of wikileaks showing an ignorance and naïveté of both world politics and what constitues a modern liberal democratic society. Let Assange speak out on this, what is his worldview?

HJ said... "Asking what laws are broken is truly besides the question"

And yet the subject of Hitchens' piece.December 7, 2010 2:52 PM

Hitchens' main point is that Assange should affirm his intentions and purposes, and the law can be a tool in this, Why affirm? because by leaking such indiscriminately (from insignificant to possible terrorist targets) yet discriminately (main target seems to be mostly the interests of the US government), one makes oneself suspect to harboring some sort of resentment regarding the US or Western powers in general.

Ha ha! And I mean just how dumb would someone have to be to believe that Hitchens has a good point. "Oooh, I don't know what your website wants to do so why not go to the nice policeman over there and ask to be arrested that way you can explain it to the judge! i think you will find it a very accommodating tool to explain your agenda!"

I like the latest "sensational discolsure". NATO has plans to defend the Baltic states and Poland from potential Russian aggression. Shocking! Thank God wonderful Assange and his associates have revealed this.

Since I'm a slobbering fanyboy of that Australian wuss Julian Assange, I won't wear a condom anymore either. If Jewel, or any of the other flanks, steaks and roasts I keep on the side, try to get me to wear one, I'll slap them around a little. Decent tenderizing!

Receiving and dispensing of stolen information is not about free speech, it's about stealing, which wouldn't be so bad if it were from China or Russia, but doing so from the U.S. strikes at crippling the greatest force for Liberalism in the world. Aside from this, Hitchens reminds us that classified information isn't always accurate, and is sometimes deliberately watered down or entirely false.

"Receiving and dispensing of stolen information is not about free speech, it's about stealing,"

Okay, now what has Assanga been arrested for? Rape. Nuttin to do wit stealing or dispensing info. Now, what laws in the US ahs he broken. errrrrr...none!

Now, do you think tht the ediotrs of New York TImes and Guradian need to be arrested too? On trupmed up irrelevant charges so that they can use the law as a tool to explain what their thoughts are about Western powers and the level of resentment they harbor towards it? Hmmmm? Hmmmm?

Another blabbering hypocrite. So you're one of these advocates of Western values who cries endlessly about American children who were killed on 9/11 but sleeps peacefully knowing US war heros are protecting your freedom by murdering Iraqi children! After all these little sandniggers will grow up to be suicide bombers anyways, right?Remember that heroic US pilot: "it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle", of course thanks to Mr. Manning and WikiLeaks the hole world could see that there was no battle, only cold blooded murder which the defenders of democracy&freedom like to call collateral damage, a textbook Orwellian euphemism if I've ever heard one.That's Operation Iraqi Freedom for you. Self-righteous hypocrites like you don't like it when their heros are exposed for all to see! You prefer axis of evil doublespeak so you can go to bed thinking you're one of the good guys.

...Hitchens reminds us...: The Pentagon never denied the authenticity of the documents or indicated past releases were inaccurate.

To the ones here who are claiming WikiLeaks only publishes US documents or ask what Mr. Assanges intentions are: There is this thing called Google. If you'd get off your lazy asses and read the mission statement and about the history of WL and all the journalistic awards they've received so far you wouldn't have to ask embarrassing questions. But I guess that's too much to ask from people with short attention span, so go back watching 4 minutes Foxnews bits and delude yourself into believing that you're informed.

Mr Hitchens demonstrates that even a bright mind like his can succumb to the very failings that he repudiates in his writings, namely misinformed, unempirical and contradictory claims regarding emotive issues. Coming from a man who, rightly I believe, condemned the insane and murderous fatwas against Rushdie, his latest on Assagne seemed like a reckless attempt to accommodate the facts to suit his views rather than the opposite. Moreover, to assign adjectives such as "magalomaniac" without proof is an insult to the standard of objectivity that we demand of a person like Hitchens. I am disappointed that a champion of reason could be so reckless in his deliberations.

Concern noted, Decent! Go to the Glorious Uptown Barber Shop! It is not run by a Nigerian! It is run by me and my meat girlfriend Jewel!But I'm lazy and untalented, and Jewel just sits there rotting, so no one looks at the site! So I go to other sites to troll and stalk! Glorious Hitchhunt! What the Cappleman! Indeed! Contribute to Assange's condom fund!

No that's clearly not what you are doing. You say it when someone points out that you have said or done a very stupid thing. Just be conscious of it, is all. It makes you look even stupider and weird too. Very off topic. If you can't defend what you say just say so or say nothing. Good job on the math though!!

You're weak in mathematics for man in your position? It's news to me that cyberstalking teenage girls usually requires a strong grasp of mathematics. I supposed it was more of a correlation than a cause. But it's great to know you're successfully overcoming your handicap.

1917, trotzki publishes the secret treaties of the tsarist era. he hopes to outrage people and to end with arbitrary governments all over europe...

the state department documents are out, there is no turning back. governments can now only manage the fallout. and btw. the US looks better to me then it did before, it has a truely competent service. if the US gets its act together and secures it material in the future, then there will be no success like this anymore for assange.

but why attack assange on such a personal level, maniac etc. ? and by calling his names and playing sigmund freund, you just look bad in the end, sorry to say mr hitchens.

PS when a 22 years old private in iraq was able to download 250000 docs on his lady gaga cd, imagine what professional agents in the service of russia and china are capable...

Well, what now? Assange has turned himself in and Hitchens is still writing pieces against him. Usually I agree with Hitch on everything except when it comes to the wars. I think this time he has truly dropped the ball.

In Hitchens' latest piece on Assange, he pretty much tells us that diplomacy is more important than free speech (it's ironic though since he left the UK for America because he was threatened by the UK government for exercising his free speech).

A challenging article, but I think I see what he's getting at. Some of us romantic fools believe that the truth stands on it's own, and that if you are so sure that you have the truth in your hands, you should be fearless to defend it, and take the punishment, if only for the satisfaction of vindication. I can understand his wish for truth to get on with it, already. But they already put Julian in jail, and have tried to pin him with rape charges, and politicians have called for his death on national television - not to mention the example that's been made of Bradley Manning - I think that Julian has pretty good reasons to hide. I wish you well, Christopher.